Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's the way I approach it; that's the way others are also approaching it. I see racists, too.Conflating "pro-white" sentiment with folks who value the 1st Amendment is not too bright.If it wasn't USMB and its history, I might be shocked by the amount of pro-white supremacist sentiment that is welling up around here.
Pretending that the RW'ers here only see this as 1st amendment issue is bullshit.
If you're wanting to imply I am racist because I appreciate the 1st Amendment, I suggest you nut up and do it.
Probably because he has more important things on his plate then making you retards feel he is sufficiently NOT racist. I mean damn, it's not like he could say anything that would satisfy you children.
Yeah. And I also think it was an ad lib from a prepared statement. It's easy to tell when he goes off script.Sure. It couldn't be much more obvious, he doesn't want to piss off the wrong people.I can actually understand that argument, but there is a time and place for everything. A President has to have the awareness to understand, appreciate and act in accordance with the broader context of any event.He made a statement to mitigate divisiveness. I know...it's a change from the last eight years. Violence is violence, regardless of who does it during a protest.
.
This is absolutely true. For "a President".
But this one has always been pointedly specific, absolutely when it results in a broad brush, about "Mexicans", about "Muslims", even jumping in to take credit for his own fingerpointing in the face of some attack, even pointing the Mexican finger at a judge from Indiana.
Now suddenly he wants to go all-inclusive and the finger goes flaccid?
You gotta be not paying attention to miss that.
He's so clumsy that he doesn't hide it very well.
.
I take a lot of significance from the delivery. He pauses, raises his eyes to make sure everybody's listening, raises his voice to make sure everybody hears, and pointedly utters "on many sides" --- and then repeats it. It comes off as entirely defensive.
.
Just an aside, but does anyone else here find the Neo-Nazis use of tiki torches somewhat ghey?
lol
I haven't posted here in a long time...just started out in July.That's the way I approach it; that's the way others are also approaching it. I see racists, too.Conflating "pro-white" sentiment with folks who value the 1st Amendment is not too bright.If it wasn't USMB and its history, I might be shocked by the amount of pro-white supremacist sentiment that is welling up around here.
Pretending that the RW'ers here only see this as 1st amendment issue is bullshit.
If you're wanting to imply I am racist because I appreciate the 1st Amendment, I suggest you nut up and do it.
I'm guessing your zealous '1st amendment' argument doesn't appear in any of the threads whose topics were left wing protests.
I'll stand corrected if you wish to prove otherwise.
Yep. As much as I question the BLM intellectual honesty, people officially tied to it, didn't call for killing cops or anyone. As much as I dislike the PC "targeting" statues, it's even worse when people won't be honest about what messages those statues were erected to convey.If it wasn't USMB and its history, I might be shocked by the amount of pro-white supremacist sentiment that is welling up around here.
I mean you can go to various civil war battlefield parks and see statutes and commemorations to soldiers, and there's no complaint about what is represented. You may disagree with the reason the men fought and died, but both sides were supporting their view of patriotism. The Klan was in Charlottesville to support Jim Crow history. There's no comparison to BLM or anything like that.
Dude, he thinks the Central Park five should STILL get the death penalty and that Obama is not an American. I don't care if he's a racist, he's supporting pro-racist issue, and that's just a fact. If you like that, vote for him, I don't give a fuck.
On November 15, 2015, as the world grappled with the horrors of a multipronged ISIS attack in Paris, Donald Trump, who was then an improbable but officially declared candidate for the presidency, tweeted, “When will President Obama issue the words RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM? He can’t say it, and unless he will, the problem will not be solved!”
I raise the subject of this tweet, and the sentiment that motivated it, in light of President Trump’s remarkable reaction to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, this weekend. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides,” he said. Trump, when presented with the chance to denounce, in plain, direct language, individuals who could fairly be described as “white supremacist terrorists,” or with some other equivalent formulation, instead resorted to euphemism and moral equivalence.
Trump’s position on the matter of President Obama’s anti-terrorism rhetoric did not place him outside the Republican mainstream. Obama’s critics argued throughout his presidency that his unwillingness to embrace the incantatory rhetoric of civilizational struggle—his reluctance to cast such groups as al-Qaeda and ISIS as vanguards of an all-encompassing ideological and theological challenge to the West—meant that, at the very least, he misunderstood the nature of the threat, or, more malignantly, that he understood the nature of the threat but was, through omission, declaring a kind of neutrality in the conflict between the United States and its principal adversary.
It is true that Obama calibrated his rhetoric on the subject of terrorism to a degree even his closest advisers sometimes found frustrating. They hoped that, on occasion, he would at least acknowledge the legitimacy of Americans’ fears about Islamist terrorism before proceeding to explain those fears away. But Obama had a plausible rationale for avoiding the sort of language his eventual successor demanded that he deploy. He believed that any sort of rhetorical overreaction to the threat of Islamist terrorism by an American president would create panic, and would also spark a xenophobic response that would do damage to America’s image, and to Americans Muslims themselves.
[snip]
But the issue here is substantially larger than mere hypocrisy. Obama carefully measured his rhetoric in the war against Islamist terrorism because he hoped to avoid inserting the U.S. into the middle of an internecine struggle consuming another civilization. But the struggle in Charlottesville is a struggle within our own civilization, within Trump’s own civilization. It is precisely at moments like this that an American president should speak up directly on behalf of the American creed, on behalf of Americans who reject tribalism and seek pluralism, on behalf of the idea that blood-and-soil nationalism is antithetical to the American idea itself. Trump’s refusal to call out radical white terrorism for what it is, at precisely the moment America needs its leadership to take a unified stand against hatred, marks what might be the lowest moment of his presidency to date.
Whole article here: Why Won't Trump Call Out Radical White Terrorism?
----------------------------
Because if he does, he alienates at least 50% of his supporters.
That wan increadib
On November 15, 2015, as the world grappled with the horrors of a multipronged ISIS attack in Paris, Donald Trump, who was then an improbable but officially declared candidate for the presidency, tweeted, “When will President Obama issue the words RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM? He can’t say it, and unless he will, the problem will not be solved!”
I raise the subject of this tweet, and the sentiment that motivated it, in light of President Trump’s remarkable reaction to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, this weekend. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides,” he said. Trump, when presented with the chance to denounce, in plain, direct language, individuals who could fairly be described as “white supremacist terrorists,” or with some other equivalent formulation, instead resorted to euphemism and moral equivalence.
Trump’s position on the matter of President Obama’s anti-terrorism rhetoric did not place him outside the Republican mainstream. Obama’s critics argued throughout his presidency that his unwillingness to embrace the incantatory rhetoric of civilizational struggle—his reluctance to cast such groups as al-Qaeda and ISIS as vanguards of an all-encompassing ideological and theological challenge to the West—meant that, at the very least, he misunderstood the nature of the threat, or, more malignantly, that he understood the nature of the threat but was, through omission, declaring a kind of neutrality in the conflict between the United States and its principal adversary.
It is true that Obama calibrated his rhetoric on the subject of terrorism to a degree even his closest advisers sometimes found frustrating. They hoped that, on occasion, he would at least acknowledge the legitimacy of Americans’ fears about Islamist terrorism before proceeding to explain those fears away. But Obama had a plausible rationale for avoiding the sort of language his eventual successor demanded that he deploy. He believed that any sort of rhetorical overreaction to the threat of Islamist terrorism by an American president would create panic, and would also spark a xenophobic response that would do damage to America’s image, and to Americans Muslims themselves.
[snip]
But the issue here is substantially larger than mere hypocrisy. Obama carefully measured his rhetoric in the war against Islamist terrorism because he hoped to avoid inserting the U.S. into the middle of an internecine struggle consuming another civilization. But the struggle in Charlottesville is a struggle within our own civilization, within Trump’s own civilization. It is precisely at moments like this that an American president should speak up directly on behalf of the American creed, on behalf of Americans who reject tribalism and seek pluralism, on behalf of the idea that blood-and-soil nationalism is antithetical to the American idea itself. Trump’s refusal to call out radical white terrorism for what it is, at precisely the moment America needs its leadership to take a unified stand against hatred, marks what might be the lowest moment of his presidency to date.
Whole article here: Why Won't Trump Call Out Radical White Terrorism?
----------------------------
Because if he does, he alienates at least 50% of his supporters.
Probably because he has more important things on his plate then making you retards feel he is sufficiently NOT racist. I mean damn, it's not like he could say anything that would satisfy you children. You would post the same shit until Monday's Russia storyline got the week started for you.
you hit a nerve when you went full snowflake November 9 2016.quiet, Vladimir.trump's bread and butter is racial anger by angry sick white Christian supremacists....
F* OFF, you mental, triggered snowflake.....
you're the one throwing temper tantrums and cussing, vlad.
did I strike a nerve, little spambot scum?
who's the snowflake again, you whiny little twit?
As much as your base is ISIS terrorist sympathizers.Q. Why Won't Trump Call Out Radical White Terrorism?
A. Because they're his base!
because he condemned violence of all kinds? how exactly do you work that in that he left out the group to which you base your argument?Oh, I don't think he chooses his words carefully. That would be giving him too much credit.Sure. It couldn't be much more obvious, he doesn't want to piss off the wrong people.I can actually understand that argument, but there is a time and place for everything. A President has to have the awareness to understand, appreciate and act in accordance with the broader context of any event.He made a statement to mitigate divisiveness. I know...it's a change from the last eight years. Violence is violence, regardless of who does it during a protest.
.
This is absolutely true. For "a President".
But this one has always been pointedly specific, absolutely when it results in a broad brush, about "Mexicans", about "Muslims", even jumping in to take credit for his own fingerpointing in the face of some attack, even pointing the Mexican finger at a judge from Indiana.
Now suddenly he wants to go all-inclusive and the finger goes flaccid?
You gotta be not paying attention to miss that.
He's so clumsy that he doesn't hide it very well.
.
the wrong people?
a decent human being would be proud to piss off neo-Nazis.
it's about time people stop making excuses for him. he chooses his words carefully.
He knows how much he needs the Alt Right, and just did a characteristically poor job of hiding it.
.
I haven't posted here in a long time...just started out in July.That's the way I approach it; that's the way others are also approaching it. I see racists, too.Conflating "pro-white" sentiment with folks who value the 1st Amendment is not too bright.If it wasn't USMB and its history, I might be shocked by the amount of pro-white supremacist sentiment that is welling up around here.
Pretending that the RW'ers here only see this as 1st amendment issue is bullshit.
If you're wanting to imply I am racist because I appreciate the 1st Amendment, I suggest you nut up and do it.
I'm guessing your zealous '1st amendment' argument doesn't appear in any of the threads whose topics were left wing protests.
I'll stand corrected if you wish to prove otherwise.
My political foundation is a value of the 1st Amendment....and the rest of the COTUS. If you prefer to assume my "guilt" with nothing to support it, you certainly have that right.
It's not an uncommon thing to do by many on your "team" - assume I'm a racist, mysogynistss, spawn of satan, whatever...simply because I voted for someone. I've no doubt the congressional baseball practice shooter did the same. It justifies your hate, and in his case, his violence. All irrespective of the fact I've expressed my disgust of whitey inferiorists countless times.
Go for it............
Well the thing is that if the issue upon which one wants to exercise his/her first amend rights upon happens to be burning the flag or saying they don't want blacks to have equal rights to housing education and jobs, one should not be surprised if a lot of people show up to go "fuck you."I haven't posted here in a long time...just started out in July.That's the way I approach it; that's the way others are also approaching it. I see racists, too.Conflating "pro-white" sentiment with folks who value the 1st Amendment is not too bright.If it wasn't USMB and its history, I might be shocked by the amount of pro-white supremacist sentiment that is welling up around here.
Pretending that the RW'ers here only see this as 1st amendment issue is bullshit.
If you're wanting to imply I am racist because I appreciate the 1st Amendment, I suggest you nut up and do it.
I'm guessing your zealous '1st amendment' argument doesn't appear in any of the threads whose topics were left wing protests.
I'll stand corrected if you wish to prove otherwise.
My political foundation is a value of the 1st Amendment....and the rest of the COTUS. If you prefer to assume my "guilt" with nothing to support it, you certainly have that right.
It's not an uncommon thing to do by many on your "team" - assume I'm a racist, mysogynistss, spawn of satan, whatever...simply because I voted for someone. I've no doubt the congressional baseball practice shooter did the same. It justifies your hate, and in his case, his violence. All irrespective of the fact I've expressed my disgust of whitey inferiorists countless times.
Go for it............
and love illegals taking jobs from blacks. let's don't forget those racist libturds taking paying jobs from blacks.As much as your base is ISIS terrorist sympathizers.Q. Why Won't Trump Call Out Radical White Terrorism?
A. Because they're his base!
Keep vilifying almost half the country, and we'll keep seeing senseless violence. You have to vilify to justify your hatred of me, and anyone who voted for Trump.
post your definition of violence.The violence here was by both. Both are wrong.Trump's initial message that placed blame on BOTH sides was clearly designed to mitigate the blame on the neo-Nazi side.
Why wouldn't blame be on both sides?
"Violence" is a very relative term. It can range from something as innocuous as ad hom here, to something as dastardly as ramming a car into pedestrians. Clearly the degree we're speaking of, as well as the POTUS commentary, is the latter. Had the car attack not happened and the day continued without such a major event, Charlottesvile would have been page 5 news and the POTUS wouldn't have even brought it up. Therefore the only reason TO bring it up to this level --- is the car attack.
Dude, he thinks the Central Park five should STILL get the death penalty and that Obama is not an American. I don't care if he's a racist, he's supporting pro-racist issue, and that's just a fact. If you like that, vote for him, I don't give a fuck.
On November 15, 2015, as the world grappled with the horrors of a multipronged ISIS attack in Paris, Donald Trump, who was then an improbable but officially declared candidate for the presidency, tweeted, “When will President Obama issue the words RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM? He can’t say it, and unless he will, the problem will not be solved!”
I raise the subject of this tweet, and the sentiment that motivated it, in light of President Trump’s remarkable reaction to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, this weekend. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides,” he said. Trump, when presented with the chance to denounce, in plain, direct language, individuals who could fairly be described as “white supremacist terrorists,” or with some other equivalent formulation, instead resorted to euphemism and moral equivalence.
Trump’s position on the matter of President Obama’s anti-terrorism rhetoric did not place him outside the Republican mainstream. Obama’s critics argued throughout his presidency that his unwillingness to embrace the incantatory rhetoric of civilizational struggle—his reluctance to cast such groups as al-Qaeda and ISIS as vanguards of an all-encompassing ideological and theological challenge to the West—meant that, at the very least, he misunderstood the nature of the threat, or, more malignantly, that he understood the nature of the threat but was, through omission, declaring a kind of neutrality in the conflict between the United States and its principal adversary.
It is true that Obama calibrated his rhetoric on the subject of terrorism to a degree even his closest advisers sometimes found frustrating. They hoped that, on occasion, he would at least acknowledge the legitimacy of Americans’ fears about Islamist terrorism before proceeding to explain those fears away. But Obama had a plausible rationale for avoiding the sort of language his eventual successor demanded that he deploy. He believed that any sort of rhetorical overreaction to the threat of Islamist terrorism by an American president would create panic, and would also spark a xenophobic response that would do damage to America’s image, and to Americans Muslims themselves.
[snip]
But the issue here is substantially larger than mere hypocrisy. Obama carefully measured his rhetoric in the war against Islamist terrorism because he hoped to avoid inserting the U.S. into the middle of an internecine struggle consuming another civilization. But the struggle in Charlottesville is a struggle within our own civilization, within Trump’s own civilization. It is precisely at moments like this that an American president should speak up directly on behalf of the American creed, on behalf of Americans who reject tribalism and seek pluralism, on behalf of the idea that blood-and-soil nationalism is antithetical to the American idea itself. Trump’s refusal to call out radical white terrorism for what it is, at precisely the moment America needs its leadership to take a unified stand against hatred, marks what might be the lowest moment of his presidency to date.
Whole article here: Why Won't Trump Call Out Radical White Terrorism?
----------------------------
Because if he does, he alienates at least 50% of his supporters.
That wan increadib
On November 15, 2015, as the world grappled with the horrors of a multipronged ISIS attack in Paris, Donald Trump, who was then an improbable but officially declared candidate for the presidency, tweeted, “When will President Obama issue the words RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM? He can’t say it, and unless he will, the problem will not be solved!”
I raise the subject of this tweet, and the sentiment that motivated it, in light of President Trump’s remarkable reaction to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, this weekend. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides,” he said. Trump, when presented with the chance to denounce, in plain, direct language, individuals who could fairly be described as “white supremacist terrorists,” or with some other equivalent formulation, instead resorted to euphemism and moral equivalence.
Trump’s position on the matter of President Obama’s anti-terrorism rhetoric did not place him outside the Republican mainstream. Obama’s critics argued throughout his presidency that his unwillingness to embrace the incantatory rhetoric of civilizational struggle—his reluctance to cast such groups as al-Qaeda and ISIS as vanguards of an all-encompassing ideological and theological challenge to the West—meant that, at the very least, he misunderstood the nature of the threat, or, more malignantly, that he understood the nature of the threat but was, through omission, declaring a kind of neutrality in the conflict between the United States and its principal adversary.
It is true that Obama calibrated his rhetoric on the subject of terrorism to a degree even his closest advisers sometimes found frustrating. They hoped that, on occasion, he would at least acknowledge the legitimacy of Americans’ fears about Islamist terrorism before proceeding to explain those fears away. But Obama had a plausible rationale for avoiding the sort of language his eventual successor demanded that he deploy. He believed that any sort of rhetorical overreaction to the threat of Islamist terrorism by an American president would create panic, and would also spark a xenophobic response that would do damage to America’s image, and to Americans Muslims themselves.
[snip]
But the issue here is substantially larger than mere hypocrisy. Obama carefully measured his rhetoric in the war against Islamist terrorism because he hoped to avoid inserting the U.S. into the middle of an internecine struggle consuming another civilization. But the struggle in Charlottesville is a struggle within our own civilization, within Trump’s own civilization. It is precisely at moments like this that an American president should speak up directly on behalf of the American creed, on behalf of Americans who reject tribalism and seek pluralism, on behalf of the idea that blood-and-soil nationalism is antithetical to the American idea itself. Trump’s refusal to call out radical white terrorism for what it is, at precisely the moment America needs its leadership to take a unified stand against hatred, marks what might be the lowest moment of his presidency to date.
Whole article here: Why Won't Trump Call Out Radical White Terrorism?
----------------------------
Because if he does, he alienates at least 50% of his supporters.
Probably because he has more important things on his plate then making you retards feel he is sufficiently NOT racist. I mean damn, it's not like he could say anything that would satisfy you children. You would post the same shit until Monday's Russia storyline got the week started for you.
I'm not surprised they did. Good for them.Well the thing is that if the issue upon which one wants to exercise his/her first amend rights upon happens to be burning the flag or saying they don't want blacks to have equal rights to housing education and jobs, one should not be surprised if a lot of people show up to go "fuck you."I haven't posted here in a long time...just started out in July.That's the way I approach it; that's the way others are also approaching it. I see racists, too.Conflating "pro-white" sentiment with folks who value the 1st Amendment is not too bright.
Pretending that the RW'ers here only see this as 1st amendment issue is bullshit.
If you're wanting to imply I am racist because I appreciate the 1st Amendment, I suggest you nut up and do it.
I'm guessing your zealous '1st amendment' argument doesn't appear in any of the threads whose topics were left wing protests.
I'll stand corrected if you wish to prove otherwise.
My political foundation is a value of the 1st Amendment....and the rest of the COTUS. If you prefer to assume my "guilt" with nothing to support it, you certainly have that right.
It's not an uncommon thing to do by many on your "team" - assume I'm a racist, mysogynistss, spawn of satan, whatever...simply because I voted for someone. I've no doubt the congressional baseball practice shooter did the same. It justifies your hate, and in his case, his violence. All irrespective of the fact I've expressed my disgust of whitey inferiorists countless times.
Go for it............
